New video - Neuroscientific Evidence: Irreducible Mind (Part 1)

They still mention things like 'feedback loops' being responsible for the mind affecting the brain in all circumstances, as well as apparent electromagnetic experiments that have shown 'memories and morality can be changed via electromagnetism' and stuff like that. Is there that much truth to these?

One commenter even went into a debate with another, mentioning so much evidence like veridical NDEs in a lengthy essay. The physicalist's response? "I'm not practicing bad faith or bias, I'm just arguing that they're just stories in the end that don't say anything about the nature of consciousness"...You'll probably find their debate in the comment section under the username 'nunnya business' or something like that. 

I've gotten so distressed about people like these and how cynical they are to these ideas. It's hopeless...

Trans-Cranial Magnetic Stimulation  can indeed change a person's "morality". One example I've read comes from the book "the wisdom of psychopaths" when the author and researcher subjected themselves to an emf "combover " to learn what it's like to be a psychopath, at least a little.

Oh I know, I posted a study from 2010 about it in another thread. http://news.mit.edu/2010/moral-control-0330

It still doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that consciousness is produced by the brain. I don't understand why so many of these uninformed materialist/physicalist cynics just assume that those scientists who argue against them aren't already aware of this stuff, which they probably are if it's been around since 2010. Since then, there haven't been very many studies to my knowledge showing electromagnetism's effect of human brains or minds or whatever.

Anyways, on advice from Max, I found that one of the most recent papers on consciousness and electromagnetism argues that emergence is wrong and consciousness is eternal, though I'm a bit skeptical of the claims the author starts making surrounding the double-slit experiment...This is his conclusion: 

Quantum physics indicates that consciousness is related to the awareness that an electron appears to show in the wave/particle duality (double slit experiment). Quantum physicists have shown that the electron behaves differently when being observed by a human. When the electron is not being observed, the electron behaves like a wave, but when an observing instrument is placed in the experiment, the electron behaves like a particle. This experience indicates that the electron will change its behaviour/reality  depending on whether or not the electron is 
being observed as if the electron is aware that it is being observed. This awareness is very similar, if not the same, as human awareness and may be related to the same consciousness. Thus consciousness understood if there creates lives otherwise it becomes pseudo but working silently for the formation of our universes and then behaves like entanglement. Consciousness is, therefore, a non-material entity capable of independent, eternal existence, and not a property but in some sense may be used as property. Consciousness is not emergent, and is eternal similar to the electron. It can remain localized in the human brain and interact with the brain, and thereby, control the activities of the human body. While electrons in the brain behave as particles, these electrons prevent the consciousness from 
realizing that it is part of a larger whole. When the electrons behave as a wave, the consciousness becomes aware of its existence outside the human mind, which makes OBE and NDE possible. Whenever the electron wave function collapses, the OBE and NDE ends and the person returns to their physical body and its perception of reality similar to the collapsing of the wave function in the double slit experiment in quantum physics. During the OBE and NDE while the electron is behaving as a wave function, consciousness can leave the brain and go into an independent floating existence outside the human body where it can travel independent of space-time similar to the entangled electron. 

How does the “I” or “self” or the perceived wholeness of one’s world emerge from a system consisting of
so many parts, billions of neurons. What creates the “Oneness” of thought processes? What creates individuality and “I”-ness or “self”? What creates feelings, free will, and creativity? The problem is solved only by making a complete total body assumed like an atom/molecule with the combination of two different characters of electro-magnetic wave functions producing in two different phases by the symmetry breaking of SU(11) & SU(5) and then 
formation of biological particles, otherwise does not create such feelings etc.

[Ninshub]

The video in the OP has just been made private (?).

Oh I know, I posted a study from 2010 about it in another thread. http://news.mit.edu/2010/moral-control-0330

It still doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that consciousness is produced by the brain. I don't understand why so many of these uninformed materialist/physicalist cynics just assume that those scientists who argue against them aren't already aware of this stuff, which they probably are if it's been around since 2010. Since then, there haven't been very many studies to my knowledge showing electromagnetism's effect of human brains or minds or whatever.

Anyways, on advice from Max, I found that one of the most recent papers on consciousness and electromagnetism argues that emergence is wrong and consciousness is eternal, though I'm a bit skeptical of the claims the author starts making surrounding the double-slit experiment...This is his conclusion: 

The question you ain't seeing is this: Why is it so damn easy to alter one consciousness? A hard knock on the head can. Alcohol does. Aging does. It's not a jump to a conclusion as so many want to believe.  Watch this vid from PBS Space time. It explains the history of how consciousness became entangled with QM. https://youtu.be/CT7SiRiqK-Q

To quote Raymond Tallis, another non-materialist neuroscientist:

Killer quote.

The materialistic worldview shows an electrochemical processes sending a "signal" (really just an electrical discharge) and the "miracle ability" of bio-matter communicates an actual message.  The materialist logic allows a step where an electrochemical signal gets loaded-up with information that has no trail of coding.  Say "signal" and then claim phenomenal communication happened, without mind.  Communication, which should be causally grounded in information and communication theory evidence.

Tallis nails it in wonderful prose, pointing out how memory is at the bottom of the information process issue.

The question you ain't seeing is this: Why is it so damn easy to alter one consciousness? A hard knock on the head can. Alcohol does. Aging does. It's not a jump to a conclusion as so many want to believe.  Watch this vid from PBS Space time. It explains the history of how consciousness became entangled with QM. https://youtu.be/CT7SiRiqK-Q

I'm aware those things can 'easily' influence aspects of one's consciousness, but that of course doesn't mean correlation means causation. Sometimes it can, but in the case of consciousness I'm not convinced at all. I'd argue that immediately assuming consciousness is as simplistic as that, in reductionist sense, is absurd. But that's my take. Consciousness isn't as easy to overpower either in the case of terminal lucidity. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree since I know I'll never convince you Steve. I've been lurking here long enough to know that.

Also, I have seen that video before and the debates in the comments section (which included some who challenged aspects of the video, but I only skimmed them since YouTube comments are rarely very well-informed). I saw the video mentioned on Bernardo Kastrup's blog/forum site: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/02/pbss-spacetime-role-of-consciousness-in.html
I found the comments he and the other bloggers make to be very interesting and enlightening. One user even mentions Dean Radin (I have mixed thoughts on him). 

I wonder if anyone here is familiar with Bernardo's site and forum? I think I see Sci there  

[Laird]

I wonder if anyone here is familiar with Bernardo's site and forum?

Sci's your man here. He is (was last I checked) a regular on Bernardo's forum. I assume he's familiar enough with Bernardo's site too. [ETA: oh, I see you've noticed this already...]

I've only had one tussle on Bernardo's forums, in this thread, which I started, and which eventually petered out despite my attempts to continue to mount a challenge:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/me...5Fbif_BAAJ

Other than that, I haven't followed it that much.

The video in the OP has just been made private (?).

He's re-uploaded it correcting some flaws and adjusting his argument it seems. He admits he was  mistaken in some areas and has made an improved version. That's very impressive for a YouTuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M

He says: 

This is a new version, because I decided to cut out a section after a supporter raised some good objections. If you want to see want convinced me and Kyle Alander to stop using this one specific argument, see here: [color=var(--yt-endpoint-visited-color, var(--yt-spec-call-to-action))]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNhUj1op5do[/color]

Once again, there are the usual comments that respond by basically saying 'you can't make a conclusion that supports idealism, but I can make one that's in favour of physicalism/materialism'.  There's one commenter who claim 'the brain is to mind what muscles are to movement', which I find to be a rather confusing statement that sounds like a false equivalency to me. The same commenter also claims: 

"the mind is capable of manipulating the brain" - there is nothing special about this statement, unless you presume that the brain is itself some dead substance which needs to be altered by a living entity from outside of the brain.

There is something very special about that statement, because as Steve Taylor put it in explaining the importance of the placebo effect, it's the equivalent of a computer monitor being able to influence the hardware and internal processing of the computer iitself according to materialist logic. Just because something doesn't agree with materialism doesn't mean it's 'unscientific' to form an alternative conclusion, which is what these critics accuse him of. 

Another commenter claims: 

Regarding Penfield's experiments, it doesn't matter if he failed to "stimulate the will". That doesn't prove your hypothesis is correct. Again, your religious beliefs are not the default narrative that we have to fallback to if everything else fails.

It is abundantly clear that the "will" can be altered by altering your brain chemistry. Have you ever had MDMA or adderall or xanax or a myriad of other similar drugs? I don't recommend it, but you would be amazed of how much your "will" can change just by ingesting a pill. Furthermore, patients with brain damage - even though alive - can lose part of their consciousness, or even lose it completely. Coma patients are another example of how this can be illustrated.

But as nbtruthman points out, it wasn't just merely 'the will'. Penfield tried and tried and couldn't achieve it, nor has apparently anybody else. While that doesn't mean it won't be possible, there is other evidence (the kind discussed on here) that indicates it probably won't be achieved. Additionally, just because someone loses a part of their consciousness because of a brain injury doesn't mean the mind-brain connection is so simple. Terminal lucidity seems to indicate otherwise. 

I find it amusing how they insist that consciousness is still a mystery and should be accepted as a 'sign of our intellectual humility', yet they simultaneously try to assert that materialism/physicalism almost completely trumps idealism and just dismiss the significance of some of the things he discusses. But I shouldn't be surprised, I'm fairly certain some people subscribe to him solely to criticise every video he does, sometimes in a rather hypocritical manner.

 I found that one of the most recent papers on consciousness and electromagnetism argues that emergence is wrong and consciousness is eternal, though I'm a bit skeptical of the claims the author starts making surrounding the double-slit experiment...This is his conclusion: 

[quote pid='36481' dateline='1592386450']
Quantum physics indicates that consciousness is related to the awareness that an electron appears to show in the wave/particle duality (double slit experiment). Quantum physicists have shown that the electron behaves differently when being observed by a human. When the electron is not being observed, the electron behaves like a wave, but when an observing instrument is placed in the experiment, the electron behaves like a particle. This experience indicates that the electron will change its behaviour/reality  depending on whether or not the electron is 
being observed as if the electron is aware that it is being observed. This awareness is very similar, if not the same, as human awareness and may be related to the same consciousness. Thus consciousness understood if there creates lives otherwise it becomes pseudo but working silently for the formation of our universes and then behaves like entanglement. Consciousness is, therefore, a non-material entity capable of independent, eternal existence, and not a property but in some sense may be used as property. Consciousness is not emergent, and is eternal similar to the electron. It can remain localized in the human brain and interact with the brain, and thereby, control the activities of the human body. While electrons in the brain behave as particles, these electrons prevent the consciousness from 
realizing that it is part of a larger whole. When the electrons behave as a wave, the consciousness becomes aware of its existence outside the human mind, which makes OBE and NDE possible. Whenever the electron wave function collapses, the OBE and NDE ends and the person returns to their physical body and its perception of reality similar to the collapsing of the wave function in the double slit experiment in quantum physics. During the OBE and NDE while the electron is behaving as a wave function, consciousness can leave the brain and go into an independent floating existence outside the human body where it can travel independent of space-time similar to the entangled electron. 

How does the “I” or “self” or the perceived wholeness of one’s world emerge from a system consisting of
so many parts, billions of neurons. What creates the “Oneness” of thought processes? What creates individuality and “I”-ness or “self”? What creates feelings, free will, and creativity? The problem is solved only by making a complete total body assumed like an atom/molecule with the combination of two different characters of electro-magnetic wave functions producing in two different phases by the symmetry breaking of SU(11) & SU(5) and then 
formation of biological particles, otherwise does not create such feelings etc.

This is quite interesting and appears to be from this paper.  A few comments:

If this theory is valid, consciousness is fundamentally based on the quantum mechanical nature of electrons and is rooted in and originates from the physical world in which electrons and wave functions exist.

This would explain how consciousness in various degrees from very slight to human seems to be spread throughout the animal kingdom at all levels from the amoeba to insects to reptiles to man. If this is right the human soul basically originates in the physical world as a basic property of the electrons of the brain. And there are individuated or collective animal souls at all levels of complexity and evolution, not just human.   

The existence of animal souls would be in accordance with many mediumistic communications. 

But the theory conflicts with very many spiritual teachings and also many messages from NDEers, mediumistic communications and "peak in Darien" spiritual experiences which hold that the soul is of divine origin, not physical origin. The theory seems not to have anything to say about the existence of a spiritual world separate from and independent of the physical world, despite the experiential evidence and very many teachings that it is indeed separate and is a higher level of existence.   
[/quote]